Огнева Е.А.1, Гусакова Н.Л.2, Бойчук И.В.3
1
Доцент, доктор филологических наук, 2Доцент, кандидат
психологических наук, 3Доцент, кандидат филологических наук, Белгородский
государственный национальный исследовательский университет
ИЛИНГВОКУЛЬТУРОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ АСПЕКТЫ МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНОЙ
КОММУНИКАЦИИ
Аннотация
В
статье
рассмотрены
лингвокультурологические
аспекты
межкультурной коммуникации с целью выявления взаимосвязи степени
интерпретации
кросскультурных
символов
языковой
личностью
коммуниканта и процессом успешной межкультурной коммуникации. В
результате исследования было доказано, что межкультурная коммуникация
основывается на интерпретации кросскультурных символов как базовых
мотивационных факторов коммуникации, зависящих от параметров языковой
личности. Именно структура культурологически обусловленной языковой
личности коммуниканта предопределяет успех межкультурной коммуникации.
Определена роль параметров языковой личности в процессе межкультурной
коммуникации.
Ключевые слова: межкультурная коммуникация, языковая личность,
кросскультурные символы.
Ogneva Е.A.1, Gusakova N.L.2, Boichuk I.V.3
1
Associate professor, PhD in Philology, 2Associate professor, PhD in Philology
3
Associate professor, PhD in Psychology, Belgorod State National Research
University
LINGUO-CULTURAL ASPECTS OF CROSS-CULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
Abstract
The article deals with the linguo-cultural aspects of cross-cultural
communication. The aim of article is to identify the relationship between lingual
personality’s interpreting degree of cross-cultural symbols and successful process of
cross-cultural communication. As a result it is proved, that cross-cultural
communication is based on interpretation of cross-cultural symbols as one of the
most important motivate factors of communication. It should be emphasized that the
lingual personality is the main component of communicative process. It is identified,
that individual parameters of lingual personality form the individual lingual world
view which reflects objectively the world perception by people having different
cultures. The role of lingual personality parameters of emigrant at the successful
cross-cultural communication is identified.
Keywords: cross-cultural communication, lingual personality, lingual
personality of emigrant, cross-cultural symbols..
Introduction
Linguo-culturology is one of the most actual scientific branches. In 1997 Yu.
S. Stepanov represented the term “linguoculturology” to study the correlation
between culture and language. There are some fundamental researches of N.F.
Alefirenko [1], A.T. Khrolenko [6], S. Bochner [7], A. Jakobs [8], J. Metge and P.
Kinloch [9] and etc. Many linguo-culturologists research for the mental bases of
language to understand the tendencies of people development in the past and in the
present. According to V.V. Vorobyev, “one of the most important issues of linguoculturology is the research of Russian national personality” [3, Р. 3-5].
Fig. 1 – Example
Thus, the study has posed the following research question: How does silence
function as a face-saving strategy when NNSs use the English language for
communicative purposes in Latvia?
Method
Methodology of linguo-culturological researches is based on conceptology,
hermeneutics, and general philology. The linguo-culturological researches is to
discover as language paradigm of culturological discourse, as basic pragmatic
functions of linguo-culturological units in any communicative situations. We use the
linguo-cultural analysis as the base method of cross-cultural communication
researches.
Table 1 – Example
№
Category
TS
%
Speed
1
a
22-24
40-60
0,1
2
b
23-25
40-60
0,1
Discussion
It is evident, that cross-cultural communication is based on cross-cultural
interpretation. According to О.А. Leontovich there are some factors of national and
cultural language specificity of cross-cultural communication, such as: 1.
Representation of cultural traditions of the people: permits, prohibitions, stereotypical
acts and etiquette characteristics of communicative universal facts. 2. Representation
of social situation and social functions of communication. 3. Representation of local
social situation in the peculiarities of the course of mental processes and various
activities, such as the psycholinguistic base of speech activity, and the paralinguistic
phenomena. 4. Determination of language specifics of community and research the
symbols as cultural symbols [4, Р. 191-192]. Motivation of cultural symbol
represents the correlation between the concrete and abstract elements of symbolic
content. Such correlation distinguishes the symbol and the sign, because the sign
illustrates the connection between the signified and the signifier. A sign becomes a
symbol as the whole spectrum of secondary conventional values of interpretation.
The symbol has the properties of the sign, although the symbol does not imply a
direct reference to the denotation.
Results
Correlation between the sign and symbol has an important role in the
specificity of cross-cultural discourse consisting of different linguistic personalities
and the conditions of communication. Lingual personality of emigrant as an object of
linguistic researches generalizes cultural-linguistic and communicative-activity
values, knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. The lingual personality consists of the
following components: 1) value component has a system of values, and life
meanings. It is the content of education. The value component allows a person to
form an initial and deep view of the world, forms the linguistic world view, the
hierarchy of spiritual representations that form the base of a national character and
realize in the process of linguistic dialogue; 2) culturological component contributes
cultural studies, such as the rules of speech and non-verbal behavior; 3) personality
component characterizes individual and deepest things in each person [5, Р. 119].
Individual parameters of lingual personality form he complex combination of
psychophysiological, social, national-cultural and linguistic peoples` differences. It
leads to the fact that at the level of cross-cultural communication the differences
between linguistic personalities reach a certain critical volume that can have both
positive and negative impact on the success in the cross-cultural communication.
English and Russian cultures had some similar things in the past, such as mythoarchetypal beginning. English culture is the unity of many tribes’ cultures such as
Brits, Scots, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons, then Norman culture. But Russian culture is
the unity of culture of pagan Slavic, Christian Byzantine, and Western European.
Different cultural identity is the base of cross-commutation shock. The study of
the cross-cultural communication principles allows identifying the causes of
communicative shock. Such identification is the way of overcoming the results of
communicative shock. The process of cross-cultural peoples interaction bases on
studying the particular of communication using complex approaches, qualitative
changes in the choice of research methods of lingual personality as the subject of
successful cross-cultural communication [4, Р. 9]. Any lingual personality has an
“evaluation scale”. For example, lingual personality of emigrant uses this “evaluation
scale” to represent the surrounding world as the linguo-cultural model. This model is
a structural property and powerful factor of personality self-determination, because a
representative of any particular culture has a certain cultural fund, that is, a set of
knowledge that provides a certain outlook in the field of national and world culture.
The cultural fund is basic units included in any national culture. The person’s
belonging to a particular culture determines his mentality as the basis of another
culture perception usually by reading literature and cross-cultural communication. In
cross-cultural communication the lingual world view is very important thing as a
guide in the communicative process between the lingual personality of emigrant and
the society. The lingual world view is the basis of personal self-identification and
largely depends on linguo-cultural specificity of society. It is the format of lingual
semantics code. Individual lingual world view can be an actual or a relic thing. But, a
relic specificity of lingual world view can be the base to form new mental structures.
As a result of such new lingual world view forming we identified the difference
between the archaic semantic system of language and the actual mental model that is
valid for a lingual group. E.E. Brazgovskaya said about the differences of crosscultural discourse of society and “social creative text” [2]. Cross-cultural discourse
has certain national sign, therefore V.V. Vorobiev says: «linguistic signs and
expressions require an extra-linguistic way of their representation and interpretation»
[3, Р. 81-82], whereas lingual world view can have the form of a linguistic one. This
thesis means that lingual world view can form linguistic competence, but it proves to
be meaningfully more complicated. The issue of culturological relativity of lingual
world view is very important. It is apparented in the variability of forms and
categorization of the meanings system.
Differences of lingual world view formed under the influence of complex
cognitive structures. Such influence is important for the forming as discursive
models, as literary text models. Lingual and linguo-cultural world views are
consistent with each other because of the dialectical connection of language and
thought as a reflection of the world in people mind. Lingual and linguo-cultural world
views have at the same time a number of differences due to their functional
specificities. Researches of lingual world view in dynamics are carried out with the
social-dynamic study of cultural interaction. The social-dynamic approach in the
study of lingual world view suggests that the lingual world view is in the status of
permanent development. The components of this system reflect the specificity of life
and culture of social and national community which is the base of cross-cultural
communicative shock, because of ethno-connotation. Ethno-connotation has the deep
level of the supposed multi-layered model of cultural concepts-sphere. It has a certain
structure and specific parameters of ethno-conotants content. The ethno-connotation
appearance in the cross-cultural communicative processes bases on the degree of
correlation between form and meaning of cultural code.
Conclusion
To sum up, lingual world view has pragmatic parameters and manifests itself in
realities, which include concepts related to the life and worldview of the society that
created them. So, it is evident, that cross-cultural communication is based on crosscultural interpretation which bases on four factors of national and cultural language
specificity having cultural symbols.
It is proved, that cultural symbol is one of the most important motivate factor
of cross-cultural communication having the lingual personality parameters of
emigrant as the base. The lingual personality parameters consist of the following
three components: value component, culturological component, personality
component. The lingual personality parameters are the base of the lingual world view
forming in cross-cultural communication process. The lingual world view is very
important thing as a guide in the communicative process between the lingual
personality and the society.
Список литературы / References
1. Алефиренко Н. Ф. Лингвокультурология: ценностно-смысловое
пространство языка / Н. Ф. Алефиренко. – М.: Флинта: Наука, 2010. – 288 с.
2. Бразговская Е. Е. Текст культуры: от события – к событию / Е. Е.
Бразговская. – Пермь, 2004. – 284 с.
3. Воробьев В. В. Лингвокультурология / В. В. Воробьёв. – М.: РУНД, 2008.
– 340 с.
4. Леонтович О. А. Русские и американцы: парадоксы межкультурного
общения / О. А. Леонтович. – Волгоград: «Перемена», 2002. – 435 с.
5. Маслова В. А. Лингвокультурология / В. А. Маслова. – М.: Aкадемия,
2001. – 208 с.
6. Хроленко А. Т. Основы лингвокультурологии / А. Т. Хроленко. – М.:
Флинта: Наука, 2004. – 184 с.
7. Bochner S. Cultures in Contacts: studies in cross-cultural interaction / S.
Bochner. – New York: Pergamon Press, 2013.
8. Jakobs A. Cross-cultural communication / A. Jakobs. – Borne: the Netherlands,
2011.
9. Metge J. Taking past each other: Problems of cross-cultural communication / J.
Metge, P. Kinloch. – New Zealand: Victoria University Press, 2014.
Список литературы латинскими символами / References in Roman
script
1. Alefirenko N. F. Lingvokulturologiya: tsennostno-smyslovoye prostranstvo
yazyka [Linguoculturology: value and meaning space of language] / N. F. Alefirenko.
– M.: Flinta: Nauka. 2010. – P. 288 [in Russian]
2. Brazgovskaya E. E. Tekst kultury: ot sobytiya – k sobytiyu [Cultural text: from
event to event] / E. E. Brazgovskaya. – Perm, 2004. – P. 284 [in Russian]
3. Vorobyev V.V. Lingvokulturologiya [Linguoculturology] / V.V. Vorobyev. –
M.: RUND. 2008. – P. 340 [in Russian]
4. Leontovich O. A. Russkiye i amerikantsy: paradoksy mezhkulturnogo
obshcheniya [Russians and Americans: paradox of cross-cultural communication] /
O. A. Leontovich. – Volgograd: «Peremena». 2002. – P. 435 [in Russian]
5. Maslova V. A. Lingvokulturologiya [Linguoculturology] / V. A. Maslova. –
M.: Akademiy [Academy], 2001. – P. 208 [in Russian]
6. Khrolenko A. T. Osnovy lingvokulturologii [Basics of linguoculturology] / A.
T. Khrolenko. – M.: Flinta: Nauka. 2004. – P. 184 [in Russian]
7. Bochner S. Cultures in Contacts: studies in cross-cultural interaction / S.
Bochner. – New York: Pergamon Press, 2013.
8. Jakobs A. Cross-cultural communication / A. Jakobs. – Borne: the Netherlands,
2011.
9. Metge J. Taking past each other: Problems of cross-cultural communication / J.
Metge, P. Kinloch. – New Zealand: Victoria University Press, 2014.